OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

emergency message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [emergency] Re: Circle and Polygon

Yes, this is one easy way to deal with the issue. Many OGC interface specs 
have an optional parameter/flag (whatever you wish to call it) that allows 
optional/and-or vendor specific extensions to an interface/payload to meet 
specific requirements. If done correctly, then can be properly be validated 
and communicated. Also, in terms of ISO definitions for profiles and 
application schemas - if done correctly - what we end up having is/are CAP 
application schemas. This is very normal best practice in IT when dealing 
with XML based standards. Hope this is not too cryptic :-)



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@intergraph.com>
To: "'Art Botterell'" <acb@incident.com>
Cc: "Emergency_Mgt_TC TC" <emergency@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 3:06 PM
Subject: RE: [emergency] Re: Circle and Polygon

> "I haven't heard any actual implementer report any of this as a
> problem... nor have I heard any technical reason why it should one.
> This whole topic seems to be based on a hypothetical concern for some
> third parties' sensitivities."
> That speaks for itself.
> Renato is asking that legacy systems be supported by a
> system reference flag.  It is a reasonable request that
> we honor every day when customizing our systems for
> customers in response to RFPs.
> One can add the flag in their own namespace or
> that of the customer.  This means of proprietary
> extension is reasonable to use when the normative
> specification offers no support.  If a CAP validator
> balks, the validator is wrong.
> len
> From: Art Botterell [mailto:acb@incident.com]
> On Jun 17, 2005, at 6/17/05 1:00 PM, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>> Please respond to the requirement to enable alternative CRSs
>> as needed.
> With all due respect, Claude, there's a difference between a
> suggestion and a requirement.  The requirements for CAP and for EDXL
> were considered at some length and adopted by this TC... and
> supporting alternate CRSs isn't among them.  (And we did go over this
> material at some length back during the CAP 1.0 deliberations.)
> And I don't think anyone's credentials have been questioned here.
> We've all seen what happens when issue discussions deteriorate into
> ad-hominem, and I hope and believe that we're all making a special
> effort to stick to the facts and leave opinions and speculation about
> other folks' motives to one side.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in 
> at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]